Thomas Mitchell and the Wellington caves: The relationship among science, religion, and aesthetics in early-nineteenth-century Australia

THOMAS MITCHELL (1792–1855), explorer and Surveyor-General in New South Wales between 1828 and 1855, was a talented and competent draughtsman who was responsible for the original sketches and even some of the lithographs he used to illustrate his two journals of exploration, published in 1838 and 1848. In this paper, I will be concerned with the 1838 journal, entitled Three Expeditions into the Interior of Eastern Australia; with descriptions of the recently explored region of Australia Felix, and of the Present Colony of New South Wales. On the whole, it is a detailed and lavishly illustrated account of the land Mitchell encountered, along with its inhabitants and natural history. My particular interest is in offering an explanation for differences between a sepia sketch depicting a cave at Wellington, NSW, that Mitchell prepared as one of the illustrations for geological material included in this journal, and the final lithograph.

Kierkegaard as a paradoxical therapist

The essential problem that Soren Kierkegaard is concerned with in his authorship is that of becoming a Christian. It is argued that Kierkegaard's authorial strategy reflects the principles of paradoxical psychotherapy. These principles indicate that both the psychological problem and its solution involve an ironic process. In the Kierkegaardian frame of reference, the situation of the immature self is paradoxical, and so is the pathway to full selfhood. The philistine and the aesthete attempt to secure autonomy and personal freedom through an external orientation. But the way to the self is inwards. Consequently, these personalities get caught in an ironic process. The further they push outwards, the further they move away from the locus of genuine selfhood and freedom. This immature form of life can only lead to a loss of self and the associated experience of despair. Paradoxically, Kierkegaard advocates the choice of despair as the way to find oneself in God.

The difference between science and philosophy: The Spinoza-Boyle controversy revisited

This article examines the seventeenth-century debate between the Dutch philosopher Benedict de Spinoza and the British scientist Robert Boyle, with a view to explicating what the twentieth-century French philosopher Gilles Deleuze considers to be the difference between science and philosophy. The two main themes that are usually drawn from the correspondence of Boyle and Spinoza, and used to polarize the exchange, are the different views on scientific methodology and on the nature of matter that are attributed to each correspondent. Commentators have tended to focus on one or the other of these themes in order to champion either Boyle or Spinoza in their assessment of the exchange. This paper draws upon the resources made available by Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari in their major work What is Philosophy?, in order to offer a more balanced account of the exchange, which in its turn contributes to our understanding of Deleuze and Guattari's conception of the difference between science and philosophy.

Merton's true self and the psychology of the dialogical self

Thomas Merton pursued a life-long quest to grasp the nature of the “true self.” This is the self that lives in and through Christ. Opposed to this is the false self that is expressive of infidelity. It is argued that the interaction between the true and false selves constitutes a dialogical process. The thesis of the essay is that this interaction expresses the dynamics associated with what some psychologists refer to as the “dialogical self.” The dialogical self is a model of the inner life that draws attention to the interpretive process required to deal with the many voices that get internalized in an engagement with the world.